Location of Repository

Deliberative democracy and cancer screeening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men\u27s knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening

By Rae Thomas, Paul Glasziou, Lucie Rychetnik, Geraldine Mackenzie, Robert Gardiner and Jenny Doust


Objective: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial. A community jury allows presentation of complex information and may clarify how participants view screening after being well-informed. We examined whether participating in a community jury had an effect on men\u27s knowledge about and their intention to participate in PSA screening. Design: Random allocation to either a 2-day community jury or a control group, with preassessment, postassessment and 3-month follow-up assessment. Setting: Participants from the Gold Coast (Australia) recruited via radio, newspaper and community meetings. Participants: Twenty-six men aged 50–70 years with no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer. Intervention: The control group (n=14) received factsheets on PSA screening. Community jury participants (n=12) received the same factsheets and further information about screening for prostate cancer. In addition, three experts presented information on PSA screening: a neutral scientific advisor provided background information, one expert emphasised the potential benefits of screening and another expert emphasised the potential harms. Participants discussed information, asked questions to the experts and deliberated on personal and policy decisions. Main outcome and measures: Our primary outcome was change in individual intention to have a PSA screening test. We also assessed knowledge about screening for prostate cancer. Results: Analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat. Immediately after the jury, the community jury group had less intention-to-screen for prostate cancer than men in the control group (effect size=−0.6 SD, p=0.05). This was sustained at 3-month follow-up. Community jury men also correctly identified PSA test accuracy and considered themselves more informed (effect size=1.2 SD, p\u3c0.001). Conclusions: Evidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men\u27s individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions

Publisher: ePublications@SCU
Year: 2014
DOI identifier: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005691
OAI identifier: oai:epubs.scu.edu.au:research_pubs-1128
Provided by: ePublications@SCU
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjo... (external link)
  • https://epubs.scu.edu.au/resea... (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.